On Wed, Jan 10, 2018 at 11:38 AM, Stephen John Smoogen <smooge@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 10 January 2018 at 14:23, Andrew Lutomirski <luto@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>> On Jan 9, 2018, at 9:59 AM, Kevin Fenzi <kevin@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/08/2018 10:53 AM, Kevin Kofler wrote:
>>> Kevin Fenzi wrote:
>>>> Well, if this firefox update was urgent, shouldn't it have been marked
>>>> urgent?
>>>
>>> Urgency is always in the eye of the beholder. I as a user consider all
>>> security updates "urgent", and in addition, I want ALL updates as soon as
>>> they passed testing no matter whether they actually are urgent.
>>
>> You also don't want updates-testing to even exist right?
>>
>>>
>>>>> I really don't understand why we do this "batched" thing to begin with.
>>>>
>>>> To reduce the constant flow of updates that are very minor or affect
>>>> very few mixed in with the major updates that affect lots of people and
>>>> are urgent.
>>>
>>> But the users were already able to opt to update only weekly. So why force a
>>> fixed schedule on them?
>>
>> To save all the Fedora users in the world from having to update metadata
>> for minor changes. Since there's a hourly dnf makecache every user in
>> the world pulls down new metadata ever time we update a repo.
>
> Could Fedora, perhaps, come up with a way to make incremental metadata
> updates fast? This shouldn't be particularly hard -- a tool like
> casync or even svn should work pretty well. Or it could be a simple
This sounds a lot like the Atomic project and how it does things...
Maybe some of Atomic's infrastructure could be used to distribute metadata for regular old Fedora.
--Andy
_______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
